On Friday afternoon, Motorola asserted 7 patents against Apple with the ITC.

Share this story

On Friday evening, Motorola Mobility, a Google subsidiary since May of this year, filed a patent infringement suit against Apple with the International Trade Commission. It said Apple had infringed on 7 of its patents in creating the iPhone, the iPad, and the iPod Touch, and Motorola is seeking an import ban on those products to the US.

While the paperwork filed by Motorola with the ITC was not immediately available, WSJ is reporting that none of the patents Motorola is asserting are currently considered standards-essential, meaning Motorola may have a fair chance at getting its requested import ban if the ITC decides Apple has in fact infringed. Patents that are not standards-essential may be licensed or not licensed at the holding company's will, whereas patents that qualify as standards-essential require holding companies to license them at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) prices. While judicial authorities have been called upon to decide what constitutes a FRAND patent, there is no legal precedent that defines what fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory means in every case.

“We would like to settle these patent matters, but Apple’s unwillingness to work out a license leaves us little choice but to defend ourselves and our engineers’ innovations,” Motorola Mobility said in an e-mailed statement to Bloomberg. The publication also noted that in a previous patent battle with Apple, the Cupertino company said that Motorola's demands for licensing fees are unreasonable.

In that previous patent dispute, the ITC ruled in April that Apple had infringed on one of the four patents asserted by Motorola against Apple. The ITC will make a final decision next week on what, if any, consequences Apple may suffer for that infringement. But even if Apple comes out on top next week, it will still have to look forward to the new suit—yet another locking of horns at the ITC.

I actually hope that Google/Motorola wins and gets the injunctions, but not because I dislike Apple (personally I don't like Apple and don't buy their products). It seems to me though that if injunctions were granted, that just might be enough for the average consumer and Congress to wake up and realize just how ridiculous the entire patent system has become, especially given how much press coverage injunctions against Apple would receive. Maybe there would finally be a meaningful overhaul of the system.

The only people benefiting from all this are the lawyers. Consumers, companies, and all those "innovative" types are losing out as the environment turns increasingly hostile, petty, and litigious.

No, the companies have billions at stake, and is why they will spend millions to sue, even when there is a chance that they will lose. If Apple can hold back the market for a year, or even 6 months, that means 10's or 100's of billions in revenue.

But their strategy means that the other companies now have to play the same game against them, and that may cost them big in the longer term.

This has to be bad from a consumer point of view. If this carries on, there will be a steady decline in mobile technology, or we will see a reduction in our choice of handsets. Apple always seem to be at the center because of their unwillingness to pay for other peoples inventions or cross license their own.

The only people benefiting from all this are the lawyers. Consumers, companies, and all those "innovative" types are losing out as the environment turns increasingly hostile, petty, and litigious.

No, the companies have billions at stake, and is why they will spend millions to sue, even when there is a chance that they will lose. If Apple can hold back the market for a year, or even 6 months, that means 10's or 100's of billions in revenue.

But their strategy means that the other companies now have to play the same game against them, and that may cost them big in the longer term.

You do realise there was other companies suing other companys before Apple.

The only people benefiting from all this are the lawyers. Consumers, companies, and all those "innovative" types are losing out as the environment turns increasingly hostile, petty, and litigious.

No, the companies have billions at stake, and is why they will spend millions to sue, even when there is a chance that they will lose. If Apple can hold back the market for a year, or even 6 months, that means 10's or 100's of billions in revenue.

But their strategy means that the other companies now have to play the same game against them, and that may cost them big in the longer term.

You do realise there was other companies suing other companys before Apple.

I don't think he realized that at all. Most likely he's just on the bandwagon of anti-Apple sentiments that's become recently popular, and because of it his already mis-guided Apple hate was stoked a little more. Anyway, thanks for that link. I'm going to post it anytime anyone mentions these meaningless litigations as if they something new that Apple started because they're so evil; although, Apple has been breaking sales records year-over-year and creating memorable consumer electronics just like everything corporation has been.

Well this ends all the Google defenders saying that they have never used patents offensively....

Depends on what you call offense and what you call defense. Rounded rectangles aside, some of the "patents" Apple is suing Samsung over are things that are incorporated into at least some versions of Android, so you could interpret that as part of Apple's larger war against Android and Motorola's suit as part of a defense in the same theater.

I don't believe there is any legal requirement to license patents that apply to standards. Standards are generally created by some kind of voluntary group and have no legal standing. But standards groups generally require some kind of agreement on patents from those participating in the standards creation process. That requirement usually includes disclosure of patents known by those working on the standard. If there is a desire to get technology standardized it is generally necessary to promise to license applicable patents on FRAND terms. Companies can get in trouble if they promote standardization of technology without disclosing their patents. Maybe some standards bodies now have agreements on what the FRAND terms are. But I don't think that kind of agreement was in place 15 years ago when I participated in this kind of process.The other reality is that a very large number of patents are held by a large number of companies involved in developing computer technology. Those like IBM and Microsoft who have made an effort to enforce their patents have made it a general practice to license patents on FRAND terms. The reality is that every company that is developing computer technology is infringing large numbers of patents. So the kind of approach that IBM and Microsoft have used is the only one that will work in practice.Apple appears to have broken with this practice in an attempt to exclude Android based phones and tablets from the marketplace. Apple appears to want to use the patent laws to manage competitiion and restrict Google's effort to promote open source operating systems as major participants in important client commercial markets. The problem Apple is going to run into is that it undoubtedly is infringing on many patents held by many different companies and it has very large pockets to pay out large amounts of money. As the process goes on and more discovery of Apple technology is made, the patent suits are going to pile up.

Well this ends all the Google defenders saying that they have never used patents offensively....

The best defense is a good offense.

Apple are the ones who started this mess. Jobs said he was prepared to "go nuclear", and that's exactly what happened. As soon as the first shot was fired there was no turning back. Everyone now has to play this game, whether they want to or not. Acquire an arsenal of patents, hit hard and fast, or get crushed.

It'll happen to more than a few as well, especially smaller companies. A lot of good innovations are going to become casualties before this war finally grinds to a halt.

the worst part of this (to me) is that it relegates innovation to "the big boys." if you don't have a squad of lawyers to patent things and defend yourself, one of the big boys will walk in, steal your shit, then sue you for being ballsy enough to invent it.

The only people benefiting from all this are the lawyers. Consumers, companies, and all those "innovative" types are losing out as the environment turns increasingly hostile, petty, and litigious.

You talk as if there's this independent, unaffiliated body of lawyers out there driving around bringing suits on their own accord.Here's a hint...Moto's lawyers don't do jack unless Moto tells them to. No corporation's lawyers file suit against another corporation without the top executives signing-off.

So Apple who doesn't want to license it's patents at all, thinks the monetary value of Motorola's license is too high and so simply steals it anyway. If the government gets to set what is "fair" and "reasonable" in FRAND, and Motorolas patents aren't FRAND, then the government has no right to tell Motorola what price to put on their patents. If they do, then they open the path for doing the same to Apple and forcing them to license their patents at a fair and reasonable price, decided not by Apple, but by a Judge.

So if Apple argues in their own defence, successfully, that Motorola were being unfair with their offer. They have just dug their own grave.

How silly this article is, Megan. You claim to be a fact-checker, yet you have a very important fact wrong. You say that "standards essential" patents are regulated by the government. What non-sense! Did you make that up, or simply fail to check your facts?

Standards essential patents are deemed to be essential to a standard by an official standards body. This is very common in communication standards, for example. An example of such a standard body would be I.E.E.E. When a patent is incorporated into a standard by one of these standards bodies, the patent owner agrees to license it to others implementing the standard at a "reasonable" cost.

A standards body has no authority to incorporate a patented component, or to give others the authority to use such patents. It is granted by the owner of the patent without involvement of the government.

Others have frequently argued (often to government authorities) that other patents unrelated to official standards should require "reasonable" cost licensing. Were these to be granted by such authority they would be missing the "standards" basis --which is of course a modifier in this term.

I don't believe there is any legal requirement to license patents that apply to standards. Standards are generally created by some kind of voluntary group and have no legal standing. But standards groups generally require some kind of agreement on patents from those participating in the standards creation process. That requirement usually includes disclosure of patents known by those working on the standard. If there is a desire to get technology standardized it is generally necessary to promise to license applicable patents on FRAND terms. Companies can get in trouble if they promote standardization of technology without disclosing their patents. Maybe some standards bodies now have agreements on what the FRAND terms are. But I don't think that kind of agreement was in place 15 years ago when I participated in this kind of process.

In the greater smartphone market, it was Nokia that started it all by suing Apple. Apple did sue HTC before Motorola sued Apple, but to say Apple started the battle with Motorola is simply not true. Wikipedia actually has a good timeline on all of this. Of course I realize that facts mean little in these arguments, but the fact is that Apple was not the initial aggressor here.

In the greater smartphone market, it was Nokia that started it all by suing Apple. Apple did sue HTC before Motorola sued Apple, but to say Apple started the battle with Motorola is simply not true. Wikipedia actually has a good timeline on all of this. Of course I realize that facts mean little in these arguments, but the fact is that Apple was not the initial aggressor here.

So.. using the argument presently on show in this thread, Apples patent attacks have being Defensive? :-p

In the greater smartphone market, it was Nokia that started it all by suing Apple. Apple did sue HTC before Motorola sued Apple, but to say Apple started the battle with Motorola is simply not true. Wikipedia actually has a good timeline on all of this. Of course I realize that facts mean little in these arguments, but the fact is that Apple was not the initial aggressor here.

Which none of them had anything to do with Google at the time.

The difference here is that Apple did start the whole "Lets sue over idiotic patents about shapes and bezels" aspect of this, though, because at least Nokia patents were originally about telecom technology, not rounded rectangles or colorful icons.And apparently there was some validity to it after all, since they decided to rather settle out of court.

You'd think that a company that claimed to have over 200 patents on the phone, would sue over more meaningful crap than that.

The mobile devices business represents serious fucking money. It is naive to think the players are not going to do everything in their power to destroy the competition or even just slow it down a bit. It's no different from the vicious (but possibly less public) battles that were fought over petroleum about a century ago. For us bystanders it would save some heartache to not pick sides. This is not really a war of principles, despite what some think.

The only people benefiting from all this are the lawyers. Consumers, companies, and all those "innovative" types are losing out as the environment turns increasingly hostile, petty, and litigious.

No, the companies have billions at stake, and is why they will spend millions to sue, even when there is a chance that they will lose. If Apple can hold back the market for a year, or even 6 months, that means 10's or 100's of billions in revenue.

But their strategy means that the other companies now have to play the same game against them, and that may cost them big in the longer term.

You do realise there was other companies suing other companys before Apple.

I don't think he realized that at all. Most likely he's just on the bandwagon of anti-Apple sentiments that's become recently popular, and because of it his already mis-guided Apple hate was stoked a little more. Anyway, thanks for that link. I'm going to post it anytime anyone mentions these meaningless litigations as if they something new that Apple started because they're so evil; although, Apple has been breaking sales records year-over-year and creating memorable consumer electronics just like everything corporation has been.

I do realize it, and while I have grown to dislike Apple's locked-down approach, I certainly don't hate them any more than I hate Microsoft or Oracle (ok, I do hate Oracle). But Apple most certainly has ramped it up over the last 2 years. Misguided you say? Since you guys like the infographics, have a look at this: http://assets.fiercemarkets.com/files/w ... rt_big.jpg.

If there's one company that Apple doesn't want to get into a mobile patent war with it's Motorola, they invented the cell market and were the biggest and most innovative company in teh market for a long time, I am willing to be they can do some serious damage to Apple with their warchest of patents.

Seeing how Nokia and Motorola sued Apple first, how come they are not deserving off it? Strange logic.

Because there is no logic in fanaticism. Didn't you heard that after Bin Laden killings most of the Talebans are now siding with Android? Only logic explanation for the threads we read since some months.

Apple always seem to be at the center because of their unwillingness to pay for other peoples inventions or cross license their own.

Apple always seem to be at the centre because because nobody gives a shit when it happens to other corporations.

This is a very real problem, and it is widespread across almost every industry. You don't hear about it when Ford or Merck go to court over patent issues, but it does happen, and it happens all the time, and the amount of revenue at stake is the same.

Yes, the lawsuit that had in it's intro a reference to deadlocked negotiations and the inevitability of Apple suing due to Apple vs HTC lawsuit. The guy at PatentlyApple actually wrote that Motorola was just doing it to have a better position, but the lawsuit from Apple was very much on it's way.

ToastedRhino wrote:

In the greater smartphone market, it was Nokia that started it all by suing Apple.

Sorry, but Nokia only asked a judge to define what was a reasonable value of their patents. Apple moved this into this level of ridiculousness.

Yes, the lawsuit that had in it's intro a reference to deadlocked negotiations and the inevitability of Apple suing due to Apple vs HTC lawsuit. The guy at PatentlyApple actually wrote that Motorola was just doing it to have a better position, but the lawsuit from Apple was very much on it's way..

So what you are saying is Apple was in the wrong in that instance cause even though they got sued first they would have sued eventually?